|
OriginalGriff wrote: she will stick with what she knows
So she can stick with WinAmp; it ain't broken, it just won't change -- which appears to be what everyone wants, anyway.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: So she can stick with WinAmp; it ain't broken, it just won't change
It isn't broken now. Which isn't to say it won't be broken on windows 12.
|
|
|
|
|
My reasons why I don't want to switch:
1. I've been using it for about 15 years
2. It doesn't use massive amounts of cpu or ram even with lots of songs (Last time I tried iTunes couldn't even start anymore)
3. It doesn't fill your pc with bloatware
4. there are thousands of skins and customizations available
I've never had any problems whatsoever with winamp. No sound file it could *not* play. No crashes. It just worked. Even on slow hardware.
Why should all those winamp users be forced to go on a search for a player that offers the same features and the same feeling when they were perfectly fine with those offered by winamp?
Should I check out player x only to find out it offers feature a & b but not feature c? or player y that offers feature b & c but not feature a?
For me it's like switching from Windows to Linux. Sure I COULD probably do everything there too, but tell me: Why are people still buying Windows if they can get Linux Distributions for free? 
modified 28-Nov-13 10:12am.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: I've never had any problems whatsoever with winamp. No sound file it could play. No crashes.
Um.
That sounds like a problem to me! 
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Nicholas Marty wrote: I've never had any problems whatsoever with winamp. No sound file it could play. No crashes.
Um.
That sounds like a problem to me!
Depends on what music he wants to play.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uhm... Looks like my mind was quicker than the fingers on the keyboard 
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: Why should all those winamp users be forced to go on a search for a player that offers the same features and the same feeling when they were perfectly fine with those offered by winamp?
Because the people who have spent months and months of their lives creating and developing it don't want to spend more of their lives on it.
Try this one[^], or this one[^], or this one[^] (which has a much smaller footprint than WinAmp), or even VLC (OK, maybe not VLC), and let the guys move on to making something else.
Alternatively, given that WinAmp ain't broke, just keep using it. If it's perfect for you now, why would you want them, or anyone else, to change it?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: OK, maybe not VLC
Why not? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
It's one of the best for playing video, but it doesn't have all the configury-pokery that people want from music players.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, OK. Having never messed around with any of that nonsense, I doubt I'd miss it.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Because the people who have spent months and months of their lives creating and developing it don't want to spend more of their lives on it.
So why shouldn't they open source it for those who still wan't to use it?
Mark_Wallace wrote: Alternatively, given that WinAmp ain't broke, just keep using it.
That's what I'm going to do as long as it works
And VLC is fine for watching videos, and that's what I use it for occasionally. But it's not really suited as a music player in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: So why shouldn't they open source it for those who still wan't to use it?
Because it belongs to them; it's part of their CV.
Would you give your work away, so that any Tom, Dick, or Harry could make little, inconsequential changes then claim to prospective employers that he'd written it?
Worse, what happens if new blood bloats the Hell out of it, ruining its reputation? That happened to a degree with VLC, a couple of years ago, when a bunch of new guys came in (but it levelled out, thank God).
They've let millions of people use their work for free for years, and they're not stopping people using it now.
All those people should say thanks, not make further demands.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Because it belongs to them
Petty, but reasonable. So in terms of their reputation one will know that they are petty.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Would you give your work away, so that any Tom, Dick, or Harry could make little, inconsequential changes then claim to prospective employers that he'd written it?
Nonsense. Are you claiming that when someone tells you that they wrote MySQL or Postgres that you just accept their word for it? If so then my feeling is you get what happens to you. But other than that exactly what prevents someone from telling you right now that they wrote it?
Mark_Wallace wrote: Worse, what happens if new blood bloats the Hell out of it, ruining its reputation?
Whose reputation exactly? The software? The open source software? Well for starters if someone couldn't fix that problem directly then they could clone it and fix it.
Mark_Wallace wrote: They've let millions of people use their work for free for years, and they're not stopping people using it now.
I can't speak for millions but I paid money to the company to use it. Could be that I was the only person in all of history that ever did that but I would expect not.
But the fact that it works now has nothing to do with whether it will continue to work with each new windows version much less bug fixes for each.
Mark_Wallace wrote: All those people should say thanks, not make further demands.
And of course insure that the company will be known for being petty.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: 3. It doesn't fill your pc with bloatware
No kidding, every time I open iTunes it wants to update but not only that, update quicktime. Winamp was updated a lot too but iTunes seems like everytime they are not patches or updates but complete re-installs.
|
|
|
|
|
It could be worse - it could be RealPlayer!
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
"Why are people still buying Windows if they can get Linux Distributions for free?"
Because they settle for whatever swill the hardware vendor gives them? 
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Why? There must be at least a dozen media players almost identical to WinAmp,
Not really, the API is probably most used. It was the first to have last.fm plugin, perhaps last.fm even sprouted from WinAmp.
http://www.last.fm/user/JoeSox[^]
Winamp has mobile support, but mainly the wide variety of plugins is what makes it attractive, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
JoeSox wrote: perhaps last.fm even sprouted from WinAmp.
One of my favourite websites! I tried Foobar once, but back then it didn't have a Scrobbler yet. I didn't try it anymore after that
It's an OO world.
public class Sander : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried others and they sucked.
Windows Media Player just doesn't have the flexible library to show the 10000's of files I have. Besides, it overwrites my tags because it thinks it knows better.
iTunes is even worse than WMP (plus I have an iPad and somehow iTunes is the worst media player to use for playing music on your iPad...).
I've also tried Foobar, but I couldn't find a decent layout to show my library.
I've tried others, but none gave me the flexibility and control that Winamp gives me (or were lacking of a Scrobbler for last.fm, a website I like even more than *dare I say it?* CP!).
Winamp just works and has done so for the last ten to fifteen years.
It's an OO world.
public class Sander : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Why? There must be at least a dozen media players almost identical to WinAmp, some of them open source, and some with the source code available.
Why are there duplicates of almost anything that anyone uses anywhere?
|
|
|
|
|
As OG mentioned in a post about people being resistant to change, that would be me. But I like Winamp and have been using it for many years. Guess I'll have to quit procrastinating and get another one but not today.
|
|
|
|
|
Try Aimp (http://www.aimp.ru/index.php[^])
It's similar to Winamp, faster and uses less resources.
it´s the journey, not the destination that matters
|
|
|
|
|
Downloaded it and kicking the tires...Keb Mo - Love Train!
It ain't nothing like WinAmp, except they both play music unless I just haven't got it set up right but that's one of the tires I'll be a kickin.
Thanks for the link!
|
|
|
|
|
A friend told me to try it as the latest version of Winamp was pretty slow.
It's very fast and neat. Sound quality is excelent. The installer is 7Mb...
It has skins and addons.
The most important thing is that it seems to be gaining momentum.
it´s the journey, not the destination that matters
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
